Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

* Don't miss E.J. Dionne's sendoff of the retiring David Obey.

* But: Did Obey quit because he was destined to become the next scalp of national conservatives?

* Either way, the seat is definitely now in play for Republicans.

* Guess who says Joe Lieberman's citizenship-stripping proposal is "draconian"? A former Bush legal adviser.

* But: David Dayen says it could really happen if enough skittish centrist Dems play along.

* Michael Scherer accuses Politico of Drudge-baiting.

* Law enforcement authorities tell ABC News that the Times Square suspect "hasn't stopped talking." For those who are keeping score, this is after he was Mirandized.

* New York Times says it: Jewish leaders criticizing Obama's treatment of Israel don't necessarily speak for rank and file American Jews.

* Steve Benen, on that GOP House candidate's ad saying the darker guy is the one who looks like a terrorist:

I can only hope someone would show Fanelli a picture of Timothy McVeigh and ask, "Does this look like a terrorist?"

* Magnanimous political olive branch of the day: Newt Gingrich says Republicans may be "pragmatically more open to a coalition" with African Americans, if only to regain minority status.

* Readers, please try this RSS feed for the blog and see if it works better.

* Someone needs to tell Harry Reid spokesman Jim Manley that it's bad form to upstage your boss. As you already know, Reid said this today:

"The Republicans are having difficulty determining how they're going to continue making love to Wall Street."

...which prompted this follow-up from Manley:

"What can I say -- it's true. Republicans are making love to Wall Street, while the people on Main Street are getting screwed."

And to all you newcomers and regulars, thanks for hanging out here on this site's first day in business at its new platform. Much appreciated.

What else is happening?

UPDATE, 7:00 p.m.: Please tune in first thing tomorrow morning for The Morning Plum, our morning news and opinion roundup...

By Greg Sargent  |  May 5, 2010; 6:16 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Financial reform , Foreign policy and national security , House Dems , House GOPers , Political media , Senate Dems  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Bloomberg: Mirandized Times Square bomb suspect has "continued to be helpful"
Next: The Morning Plum


In other news, looks like the republican's successfully removed bank funded bailouts and replaced them with government funded bailouts under the disguise of "no more government bailouts".

When will their voters learn that nothing they do will assist the voters, just big business... Now they want to negate the consumer protections after a victory for future government bailouts.

When will the Democrats get something for all the giving they do. They keep agreeing to stuff in "HOPES" of getting a republican vote but never get a vote.

Posted by: soapm | May 5, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the NYT link on Jewish Americans, Greg. Interesting article. I can definitely speak to that.

Relatedly, for those interested, I just watched an exceptional documentary on PBS about the history of Jews in America dating back to the 1600s. Fascinating stuff:

Also, fyi, in keeping with tradition from the old PL, I posted a few OT articles at the bottom of the previous thread. I can never wait till happy hour! Have a good night, one and all!

Posted by: Ethan2010 | May 5, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Just wanted to tell you that I find you to be "must reading." You are consistently excellent and I think you well fulfill your role as an objective journalist from a left perspective.

Having long been around dkos and other Democratic blogs, I am coming to the conclusion that this is the future of the netroots. The other blogs are too easy to game (by some) and end up too sensationlized.

Thank you.

Posted by: TomP4 | May 5, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Manley, for the win!

If they can't find a way to beat the hapless GOPs in NV, I'm gonna have to assume the people of that state are delusional.

Posted by: BGinCHI | May 5, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Thanks much Tom, really appreciate that.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | May 5, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

To get the RSS feed to work again - unsubscribe from both the new one and the old one.. and then re-subscribe to the new feed posted above.

Posted by: cwright24 | May 5, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Ethan, you're probably gone already but that Thune quote re Corker is absolutely priceless and gave me a chuckle to boot. Also, thanks for keeping us apprised of the improving economic news. Anecdotally, we've been really busy here but if the oil spill hits the Gulf and Florida as an economic disaster it won't last, for us anyway.

Has anyone noticed all the calls for the "big bad government" assistance though? Once again the South will be looking to be bailed out by the Feds. That's fine with me, they're going to need it. Too bad they don't have the same compassion for the uninsured or the out of work.

Posted by: lmsinca | May 5, 2010 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Note to regular commenters, do me a big favor and encourage the newcomers to stick around. :)

Posted by: Greg Sargent | May 5, 2010 7:05 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure the Obey seat is in all that much danger. While nothing is impossible, it's a D+3 district and Obama took it 56-43 (though admittedly Gore/Kerry both barely won it). There are some factors that show it trending right some, but on a whole it's certainly in the "lean" column.

Also, it's again worth pointing out that we are not necessarily looking at an anti-Democrat wave...but rather an anti-incumbent one. The Dems supposedly have a deep bench in that district, so someone with decent fundraising could run as an outsider or fresh voice, and help blunt some of the pain that other districts may be facing.

No race can be taken for granted, but right now, it doesn't look like it's in play as much as FirstRead would have us believe.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | May 5, 2010 7:10 PM | Report abuse

As for Benen's quote:

"I can only hope someone would show Fanelli a picture of Timothy McVeigh and ask, 'Does this look like a terrorist?'"

He must have been reading Plumline today, 'cuz at least a half dozen or more of us have already said the same thing.

Posted by: Gasman1 | May 5, 2010 7:29 PM | Report abuse

I don't know if anyone else has been following the net neutrality issue, but things are looking up slightly. We should see the chairman's proposal tomorrow. It looks like all the complaints via calls, emails and letters may have paid off this time.

"In response to widespread netroots backlash, the chairman of the FCC has decided to choose a path toward a broadband policy framework that will protect Net Neutrality and promote universal access."

"According to the Wall Street Journal, the Chairman plans to restore the status quo as it existed prior to the court decision in order to fulfill the agency's goals to bring broadband to all Americans and preserve a free and open Internet. The recent court decision determined that changes made by the Bush-era FCC had stripped the agency from authority to regulate Internet broadband providers like Comcast and ATT."

"Assuming that the Chairman's proposal is reasonable, it is a clear signal that the FCC is backing away from the cliff, and charting a path toward a sensible broadband policy framework that will protect consumers and promote universal access."

Posted by: lmsinca | May 5, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Jim Manley's tag line is HILARIOUS!!!!

Posted by: maritza1 | May 5, 2010 7:35 PM | Report abuse

Great Roundup Greg! I often read Eugene Robinson's columns and E.J Dionne's so, now I have one more reason to drop by!

Posted by: roxsteady | May 5, 2010 7:52 PM | Report abuse

I expect many of you have seen Colbert's bit on Times Square. For those deprived...

Posted by: bernielatham | May 5, 2010 8:55 PM | Report abuse

For you young people who want an example of Demagoguery, see statements from Harry Reid the clown and his assistant clown below. Classic Demagoguery. Dems get more money from Wall Street than Reps. And Charles Schumer is "in bed" with Wall Street on an almost nightly basis.

* Someone needs to tell Harry Reid spokesman Jim Manley that it's bad form to upstage your boss. As you already know, Reid said this today:

"The Republicans are having difficulty determining how they're going to continue making love to Wall Street."

...which prompted this follow-up from Manley:

"What can I say -- it's true. Republicans are making love to Wall Street, while the people on Main Street are getting screwed."

Posted by: hz9604 | May 5, 2010 8:56 PM | Report abuse

Wikipedia updates page on George Alan Rekers...

Posted by: bernielatham | May 5, 2010 9:01 PM | Report abuse

The constant need to click on "Continue Reading This Post" is obnoxious. Please change the site so that only especially long posts go below the fold, not normal ones.

Posted by: NabilHassein | May 5, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

What a shame that we won't be able to hear these clever issuances from the Reid pie hole after November 2010. Na Na ...Na Na Na Na Hey hey hey goodbye.............

Posted by: hz9604 | May 5, 2010 9:22 PM | Report abuse

"What a shame that we won't be able to hear these clever issuances from the Reid pie hole after November 2010. Na Na ...Na Na Na Na Hey hey hey goodbye............."

If the MSM keeps to its usual pattern, they'll have Reid on every day to comment on current political events. Oh, wait, I guess that just applies to the Bush administration.

Good luck with your chicken-plucker out there in NV.

Posted by: BGinCHI | May 5, 2010 9:30 PM | Report abuse

This entire issue with Miranda completely confounds me. Here's a few words from Digby, you guys know where to find her. Of course the Buchanan she's referring to is Pat and his comments this week regarding the Times Square bomber.

"Now we know that people like Buchanan believe that he should be called an unlawful combatant regardless of his citizenship, tortured, tossed in a cell and we should throw away the key, but so far that isn't the law of the land or the policy of the government (at least not on US soil.) Therefore, the government had no choice but to go by the book."

"Assuming the right's non-stop bleating about the constitution and the rule of law has any basis in reality, they need to come to terms with the idea that the government doesn't have a choice in this. They have to mirandize suspects and follow the law. And they need to understand that if the government just decides not to, it doesn't mean that the suspect never had those rights. The fifth amendment still exists even if the suspect isn't told about it --- it is not contingent on the Miranda warnings."

Posted by: lmsinca | May 5, 2010 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Lowden could be dangerous. Already her campaign war chest has grown to eight cows, an '83 Dodge, seventeen carrots and a gutter repair pledge. She'll be taking these over to the local TV station later this week for a prime time ad run.

Posted by: bernielatham | May 5, 2010 9:54 PM | Report abuse

Can anyone identify for me the rights that citizens of the United States have that non-citizens don't have? Particularly rights granted under the fifth amendment, are they not applicable to anyone present in this country?

There has to be some precedent on this.

Posted by: cmccauley60 | May 5, 2010 10:42 PM | Report abuse

So far so good here Greg. Glad to see so many new posters, as well as regulars from the old site. I hope the new commenters stick around, this is a great blog.

Posted by: SDJeff | May 6, 2010 2:01 AM | Report abuse

@cmccauley60 - I hope someone with more legal knowledge than this Canadian can help you out.

Posted by: bernielatham | May 6, 2010 6:39 AM | Report abuse

Green/Bowers point to primary voters and the divergence in party enthusiasm... (see Primaries Reveal Enthusiasm Gap Favoring GOP)

As these two fellows argue, this ought to seriously concern Dems for all the obvious reasons.

Posted by: bernielatham | May 6, 2010 6:48 AM | Report abuse

Ezra writes a smart post on the Ben Smith Politico piece from yesterday...

Posted by: bernielatham | May 6, 2010 7:08 AM | Report abuse

Americans and guns. If there is any one thing about American culture that raises the eyebrows of non-Americans, it's this bizarre thing you folks have going on.

Growing up in Canada, there were guns in our home (brother, not dad) and in all my uncles' homes (for hunting, as free meat was valuable and often tasty - except moose, which always tasted like you were getting a cut from somewhere closely proximate to the creature's crotch).

But guns weren't SACRED. They weren't perceived as the necessary and effective final defense between yourself and evil or oppression. We figured that we be better armed for those threats with a good education.

Gail Collins' column this morning takes on Linsey Graham's pander to the gun lobby and it's influence on his party. She probably doesn't like moose either...

Posted by: bernielatham | May 6, 2010 7:36 AM | Report abuse

Karl Rove on how bona fide civility in politics is exemplified by persons on the right (he's including himself in this)...

Posted by: bernielatham | May 6, 2010 8:02 AM | Report abuse

Some letters to the editor are better than others...

Posted by: bernielatham | May 6, 2010 8:13 AM | Report abuse

All, morning roundup posted:

Bernie, very glad to see you here.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | May 6, 2010 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Those who are claiming that the law is clear that a citizen or even a citizen captured in the US must be Mirandized are simply wrong, and the Digby comments quoted above reveal nothing but her ignorance on the subject.

Setting aside that no one "must" be Mirandized as a prerequisite to civilian trial, precedent on this issue is not clear, except for the Quirin case, which did squarely hold that a US citizen captured in the US on a mission for a foreign enemy (Nazi Germany) could be tried in a military commission. In a sense, the only question is whether that part of Quirin remains good law.

I am no expert in this particular area, but anyone interested will have to spend significant time studying such cases as Milligan, Quirin, Hamdi, and Padillo. In Padillo's case, as I recall, the last federal court to rule held that he could in fact be held in military detention even though he was a US citizen captured here. Why? He was an agent of al Queda.

There are many issues to be considered besides citizenship and geographical location of capture. At this point, it still appears to be the case that an enemy combatant can be held and tried by the millitary despite being a US citizen captured here. The question isn't settled, but there isn't a SCOTUS case that holds otherwise, and anyone claiming to be able to state the clear and settled law on these questions in few blog lines is ipso facto ignorant about the matter.

Posted by: quarterback1 | May 6, 2010 8:51 AM | Report abuse

OT technical comment:

My browser doesn't want to remember this new blog url. It remembers Ezra Klien's and Right Now's (neither of which I read), but not this new Plumline home. Annoying.

This certainly looks nicer, but not sure it is a technical improvement other than preview.

Posted by: quarterback1 | May 6, 2010 9:06 AM | Report abuse

@hz:Dems get more money from Wall Street than Reps.

thoroughly misleading...from swampland

historically Republicans have taken much more money from BP, but this is buried in the assertion that Democrats have almost pulled even with Republicans in recent years. That's one way of slicing the numbers. Another would be to say that in the last 20 years, BP has given 71 percent of its money to Republicans, and 29 percent to Democrats. (That number is not in the story, which also chooses not to count soft money contributions during the 20-year horizon. If soft money, which was given to party committees, not individuals, Obama would no longer be the top recipient. BP, for instance, gave more than $100,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, far more than the money that went to Obama.) One could also point out that of the top 30 recipients of BP money over this time period, 26 are Republican and only four are Democrats.

Read more:

Posted by: srw3 | May 6, 2010 9:16 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company